ജോണ്‍ സാമുവല്‍
1) ഭാഷ ജൈവബധ്ധമാണ്. മലയാള ഭാഷയുടെ ഉയിരും ഊര്‍ജവും ഉരുത്തിരിയുന്നത് അത് വിനിമയത്തിന് ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്ന ആളുകളുടെ ജീവിത- വ്യവഹാര സാഹചര്യങ്ങല്‍ക്കനുസരിചായിരിക്കും. എല്ലാ ഭാഷകളും മാറ്റത്തിന് വിധേയമാണ്.
2) എന്നാല്‍ ഭാഷയുടെ ഭരണഘടനയും മേല്കൊയ്മയുള്ള വ്യാകരണ-വ്യവഹാര രീതികളും രൂപപെട്തുന്നതില്‍ അന്നന്നത്തെ അധികാര സ്ഥാപനങ്ങള്‍ക്കും വ്യവസ്തക്ക്കും കാര്യമായ പങ്കുണ്ട്.
3) മലയാള ഭാഷയുടെ പരിണാമത്തില്‍ ബ്രാമ്മനര്‍ക്കെന്നപോലെ, അറബി, സുറിയാനി, റോമന്‍ വ്യാപാര വ്യവഹാരങ്ങള്‍ക്കും പങ്കുണ്ടാന്നുള്ളത് സാമ്പത്തിക-അധികാര ശ്രേണികളുടെ കുറിമാനങ്ങളാണ്. മലയാളത്തില്‍ ആദ്യമായി പുസ്തകപ്രസാധനം പതിനാറാം നൂറ്റാണ്ടില്‍ ചെയ്ടതും പോര്ടുഗീസുകരയിരുന്നലോ. ഇപ്പോള്‍ നമ്മളുപയോഗിക്കുന്ന കസേര, മേശ, ജനല്‍ എന്ന വാക്കുകളടക്കം പലവയും പോര്ടുഗീസില്‍നിന്നും ആവഹിച്ചവയാണ്. ആഗോളവല്‍ക്കരണം
വരുന്നതിനു എത്രയോ മുന്‍പ് തവണ നമ്മുടെ ഭാഷ ഒരു ബ്രഹത്തായ ആഗോള വ്യാപാര കണ്ണിയിലൂടെ മറ്റു പല ഭാഷകളും സംസ്കാരങ്ങളുമായി ഇണചേര്‍ന്നു രൂപഭാവങ്ങള്‍ആര്‍ജിച്ചു.
4) പത്തൊന്‍പതാം നൂറ്റാണ്ടിന്റെ രണ്ടംപകുതിയിലും ഇരുപതാം നൂറ്റാണ്ടിന്റെരണ്ടാംപകുതിയിലും മലയാള ഭാഷയുടെ വ്യവഹാരത്തെ രൂപപ്പെടുത്തിയതില്‍ പത്ര മാധ്യമങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് പ്രധാനമായ ഒരു പങ്കുണ്ട്. ആദ്യം ബേസല്‍ മിഷന്നും പിന്നീട് കേരളീയരായ പുതു മധ്യവര്‍ഗ വരേണ്യ ഉത്സാഹികളും തുടങ്ങിവച്ച മാധ്യമ-ഭാഷ സംരംഭങ്ങള്‍ക്കും പുതിയ കൊളോനീയ-അധുനീകതയുടെ അധികാര പ്രസരം ഉണ്ടായിരരുന്നു. 1892 -ഉണ്ടായ ഭാഷാപോഷിണി സഭയുടെ അങ്ങത്ത വിശകലനം ചെയ്താല്‍ പുതിയ വരേണ്യ-വിഭാഗവും ഭാഷ വികാസ-വ്യവഹാരവും തമ്മിലുള്ള കണ്ണികളെ കാണ്മാന്‍ സാധിക്കും.
മലയാള ഭാഷാ വീണ്ടു മാറിക്കൊണ്ടിരിക്കും- മലയാളികളുടെ ജീവിത-വ്യവഹാരങ്ങള്‍ മാറുന്നതോടൊപ്പം.
മലയാള ഭാഷക്ക് മാത്രമല്ല ഈ വിഹുഅലതകള്‍. കാലവും സാഹചര്യങ്ങളും മാറുന്നതനുസരിച്ച് ഭാഷയും മാറിക്കൊണ്ടിരിക്കും. ഭാഷയോടുള്ള വൈകാര്യകമായ പ്രതീകരണങ്ങള്‍ ഉണ്ടാകുന്നതു പോലും നമ്മളറിയാതെ നമ്മളുടെ ഉള്ളില്‍
സ്ഥാപനവല്‍ക്കരിക്കപെട്ട സത്വ ബോധങ്ങളില്‍ നിന്നാണ്. പതിനാറാം നൂറ്റാണ്ട് മുതല്‍ രൂപപെട്ടുവന്ന, നിര്‍മ്മിക്കപെട്ട ഭാഷാടിസ്ഥിത ദേശീയ സത്വ ബോധത്തില്‍ നിന്നാണ് ഭാഷ മൌലീക വാദങ്ങള്‍ ഉണ്ടായി തുടങ്ങയിത്
( from facebook discussions)
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Egypt: Hopes and Challenges
John Samuel
When people are together, they can indeed move mountains and shake the foundations of even the most formidable of the rulers. The Revolution that the world witnessed over the eighteen days at the Liberation square in the heart of Cairo proved the power of the people to challenge and change. This unprecedented people's revoultion for democracy in the Arabworld give a new sense of hope for democracy and people's aspirations for freedom. However, it also throws up new challnges as Egypt is moving towards a rather precarious political transition.
The next few months in Egypt will have serious implications not only for the region, but also for the economy and political process of the world
Every political situation, context and revolution would be unique. That goes without saying. But no political transition in the modern nation--state happens in isolation. There are historical, economic, cultural, geo-political and international dynamics that influence and shape the agenda of any regime or change of regime. While understanding and appreciating the power of the people and the unique character of the situation, it is also important to be informed by soco-cultural and political history of the region and the world- and also develop a sense about comparative politics- in any types of transitional politics.
As Egypt moves in to next phase, there are many challenges ahead: a) The future of the 1979 , Israel-Egypt accord signed after the Camp David b) How new political parties get a real presence and politics within a period of six months- in a society that hardly got any political party process, structures or experience c) How to transform institutions in such a way to align to the new aspiration for a democratic civilian governance d) Ability to do strategic negotiation with Military to make sure that they remain in the background of the political process rather than in the forefront e) Supporting the new political party process to move towards a more democratic and peaceful transition. Egypt may also require a new constitution- and this would take its own time- with lots of political implications. The next one year may define the politics of the country and region in the next fifteen years.
There are many issues here: a) Absence of rooted leadership with political experience or understanding- as Mubarak destroyed all possibilities for alternative politics or leadership b) whether the Barak Obama would show a sharp sense of practical as well as political imagination that would help that US to win back the good will of the people, and at the same time ensuring the sustainability of the Egypt-Israel peace accord. Egypt is a geo-political hot-spot for various reasons- and in a way the US simply cannot afford to lose the precarious (and risky) geo-political balance within the given context.
Military still remains one of the most stable and strong institutions in Egypt- and the entire political leadership of Egypt from 1952 were derived from the military. And the top brass of Military will certainly have role in negotiating change- in the next one year- and even when there is a civilian government, their role will not decrease
Most of the top brass of army are trained by the US (like the case of Pakistan) and hence the US plan would be to operate through the Army (that is what they did from 1977 to 1982- till Mubarak was in the chair- he was from Air force) - and pop up a national unity government- with possible participation of a section of MB. The present NDP may split in to two or three factions. In spite of all the present enthusiasm and mobilisation, in the next election in September, there could be political subversion - and the chances of an ex-military man in the form of party A or B would be more probable.
Army is not monolithic. It is one thing for the soldiers or policemen to be friendly with people, but it is an entirely different thing when it comes to hard power politics of managing multiple interests with the muscle power of army. One has seen this in many places, most recently in Thailand. So there may not be any sudden repression or oppression. But what may happen is the ‘subversion’ of power in such transition
Armed forces may not want to lose this opportunity to control and the US may not want to miss the opportunity to influence the army. So it could even be like a Pakistan-type arrangement. Civil Government n the front- with army in the back with huge say in foreign policy, security and defence. The problem is that 'built-in' instability may cripple the Egyptian economy- and the extremist elements would take this opportunity to create more sense of insecurity and chaos
The more challenging aspect would be how to transform the energy of young people who in a way spontaneously mobilised and persisted for change to be a part of the new political process and positive development. Most of them want a peaceful co-existence with Israel. While a large number of them may prefer a moderate Islamic slant of democratic governance, majority of people may not prefer the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood - as a large number of ordinary Egyptians also seem to indicate a respect for other religions- particularly the Coptic Church- as almost 10 percent of population may be Christians
There has to be new constitution, election and a civilian leadership.In the last many years, there were hardly any genuine elections in Egypt. And conducting an election is not merely about aspirations- but also about institutional capacity and technical capacity. The logistics, capacity and the technical know-how of conducting a genuine election requires institutional experience and technical expertise as well.
One has to wait and see how the 'Revolution' unfolds in terms of hard-politics in terms of negotiating multiple interests and ideals for democracy. Of course, we all would like a true revolution- with transformative politics, policy and state. But that is not something that can happen within few months
History of stable democratic transition shows the need for three things( among others) a) Healthy political party process b) Army completely detached from political management of the state, restricting their traditional role c) A capable and vibrant middle class. And Egypt certainly got a very capable, aware and enlightened middle class. And my sense is that after 58 years of direct role in political management of the state, it would be indeed challenging to keep out the army completely out of governance (particularly due to geo-politics and the entrenched power-relationships) and the sustainable political parties emerge over a period of time. So the chances are there will indeed be democratic transition with’d’ in the short term.
In the present context of transition,it may be good to learn from experience of Turkey- (which in a way had close links with Egypt- historically and to somewhat culturally too- Egypt was a part of the Ottoman Empire and many institutions are influenced by such a historical experience). It is interesting to see how democracy- Islam- Army negotiated over a period of time in the context of Turkey- with a clear sense of negotiation with global and European economy. Of course, Kemal Ataturk was a true visionary- a man with a historical sense of mission, though he too began as young army officer( like Nasser)
The sheer power of mobilization of people and their aspiration for democracy means it would be difficult for the regime to continue in the present mode. So in the emerging situation, there will be more space and freedom for people, space for political parties, but a transition to a restricted democracy- with a civilian leadership- backed by the Army.
It is one thing to transition to a civil leadership and it is not the same thing to sustain a stable and vibrant democratic state. One hopes this will happen and this would go down in the history as the one of the most formidable democratic revolutions in 21st century. One can hope so, though hope in itself may not necessarily match with the complexities of power-games on the ground and elsewhere.
.
When people are together, they can indeed move mountains and shake the foundations of even the most formidable of the rulers. The Revolution that the world witnessed over the eighteen days at the Liberation square in the heart of Cairo proved the power of the people to challenge and change. This unprecedented people's revoultion for democracy in the Arabworld give a new sense of hope for democracy and people's aspirations for freedom. However, it also throws up new challnges as Egypt is moving towards a rather precarious political transition.
The next few months in Egypt will have serious implications not only for the region, but also for the economy and political process of the world
Every political situation, context and revolution would be unique. That goes without saying. But no political transition in the modern nation--state happens in isolation. There are historical, economic, cultural, geo-political and international dynamics that influence and shape the agenda of any regime or change of regime. While understanding and appreciating the power of the people and the unique character of the situation, it is also important to be informed by soco-cultural and political history of the region and the world- and also develop a sense about comparative politics- in any types of transitional politics.
As Egypt moves in to next phase, there are many challenges ahead: a) The future of the 1979 , Israel-Egypt accord signed after the Camp David b) How new political parties get a real presence and politics within a period of six months- in a society that hardly got any political party process, structures or experience c) How to transform institutions in such a way to align to the new aspiration for a democratic civilian governance d) Ability to do strategic negotiation with Military to make sure that they remain in the background of the political process rather than in the forefront e) Supporting the new political party process to move towards a more democratic and peaceful transition. Egypt may also require a new constitution- and this would take its own time- with lots of political implications. The next one year may define the politics of the country and region in the next fifteen years.
There are many issues here: a) Absence of rooted leadership with political experience or understanding- as Mubarak destroyed all possibilities for alternative politics or leadership b) whether the Barak Obama would show a sharp sense of practical as well as political imagination that would help that US to win back the good will of the people, and at the same time ensuring the sustainability of the Egypt-Israel peace accord. Egypt is a geo-political hot-spot for various reasons- and in a way the US simply cannot afford to lose the precarious (and risky) geo-political balance within the given context.
Military still remains one of the most stable and strong institutions in Egypt- and the entire political leadership of Egypt from 1952 were derived from the military. And the top brass of Military will certainly have role in negotiating change- in the next one year- and even when there is a civilian government, their role will not decrease
Most of the top brass of army are trained by the US (like the case of Pakistan) and hence the US plan would be to operate through the Army (that is what they did from 1977 to 1982- till Mubarak was in the chair- he was from Air force) - and pop up a national unity government- with possible participation of a section of MB. The present NDP may split in to two or three factions. In spite of all the present enthusiasm and mobilisation, in the next election in September, there could be political subversion - and the chances of an ex-military man in the form of party A or B would be more probable.
Army is not monolithic. It is one thing for the soldiers or policemen to be friendly with people, but it is an entirely different thing when it comes to hard power politics of managing multiple interests with the muscle power of army. One has seen this in many places, most recently in Thailand. So there may not be any sudden repression or oppression. But what may happen is the ‘subversion’ of power in such transition
Armed forces may not want to lose this opportunity to control and the US may not want to miss the opportunity to influence the army. So it could even be like a Pakistan-type arrangement. Civil Government n the front- with army in the back with huge say in foreign policy, security and defence. The problem is that 'built-in' instability may cripple the Egyptian economy- and the extremist elements would take this opportunity to create more sense of insecurity and chaos
The more challenging aspect would be how to transform the energy of young people who in a way spontaneously mobilised and persisted for change to be a part of the new political process and positive development. Most of them want a peaceful co-existence with Israel. While a large number of them may prefer a moderate Islamic slant of democratic governance, majority of people may not prefer the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood - as a large number of ordinary Egyptians also seem to indicate a respect for other religions- particularly the Coptic Church- as almost 10 percent of population may be Christians
There has to be new constitution, election and a civilian leadership.In the last many years, there were hardly any genuine elections in Egypt. And conducting an election is not merely about aspirations- but also about institutional capacity and technical capacity. The logistics, capacity and the technical know-how of conducting a genuine election requires institutional experience and technical expertise as well.
One has to wait and see how the 'Revolution' unfolds in terms of hard-politics in terms of negotiating multiple interests and ideals for democracy. Of course, we all would like a true revolution- with transformative politics, policy and state. But that is not something that can happen within few months
History of stable democratic transition shows the need for three things( among others) a) Healthy political party process b) Army completely detached from political management of the state, restricting their traditional role c) A capable and vibrant middle class. And Egypt certainly got a very capable, aware and enlightened middle class. And my sense is that after 58 years of direct role in political management of the state, it would be indeed challenging to keep out the army completely out of governance (particularly due to geo-politics and the entrenched power-relationships) and the sustainable political parties emerge over a period of time. So the chances are there will indeed be democratic transition with’d’ in the short term.
In the present context of transition,it may be good to learn from experience of Turkey- (which in a way had close links with Egypt- historically and to somewhat culturally too- Egypt was a part of the Ottoman Empire and many institutions are influenced by such a historical experience). It is interesting to see how democracy- Islam- Army negotiated over a period of time in the context of Turkey- with a clear sense of negotiation with global and European economy. Of course, Kemal Ataturk was a true visionary- a man with a historical sense of mission, though he too began as young army officer( like Nasser)
The sheer power of mobilization of people and their aspiration for democracy means it would be difficult for the regime to continue in the present mode. So in the emerging situation, there will be more space and freedom for people, space for political parties, but a transition to a restricted democracy- with a civilian leadership- backed by the Army.
It is one thing to transition to a civil leadership and it is not the same thing to sustain a stable and vibrant democratic state. One hopes this will happen and this would go down in the history as the one of the most formidable democratic revolutions in 21st century. One can hope so, though hope in itself may not necessarily match with the complexities of power-games on the ground and elsewhere.
.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Role of the broad Left Politics: Democratising Institutions, knowledge and power
John Samuel
What does 'Left' mean today? How do we contextualise the role of the Left politics in the world, and India?
The term Left is a relative and comparative category rather than indicative of a clear political ideology or political philosophy. The term ‘Left’ can signify a whole range of policies and political positions. Left can have multiple connotations in multiple contexts and periods- indicating social democrats, socialists, communists, anarchists, greens, and even Liberals in the context of the USA. Though it signifies a broad range of politics and policies that seek to change the society to a more equitable and egalitarian direction, the use of the term precedes the movement for socialism or communism in the late 19th century. The Left is generally seen as political bias in favour of equality, fraternity, Freedom and emancipation- with a policy bias in favour of a more active government, welfare state and the marginalised sections or class of people. Right wing politics is generally perceived in terms of the maintenance of the status-quo, conservative values, individualism, less role of the government, accumulation of wealth, maximisation of profit and free market ideology.
In spite of such broad indications, it is not easy to put people in to such neat categories as most of the people derive their worldview, perspectives and attitude from a variety of sources and contexts ; their perspectives are often shaped by the power-relationship at a given point in time, social locations and cultural contexts.
The notions of Leftwing and Rightwing emerged during the French Revolution, referring to the seating arrangement in parliament; those who sat on the left generally supported the radical changes of the revolution, including the creation of republic and secularization. Radical Montagnard and Jacobian deputies form the Third Estate used to sit left to the President’s Chair, a practice that began in the Estates General of 1789. All through the 19th century the main dividing line between the Left and Right in France was that Left supported Republic and the Right was for Monarchy.
So the term Left is more indicative of those who questioned the status-quo of power and sought change in favour of more freedom. The term Left could mean different things in different countries. In the US, a political liberal who support affirmative action, poverty-eradication etc are termed as Leftist. But the meaning could be different in Europe- where those who supported workers rights and more rights for immigrants etc are termed as the Left. China, once up on a time, was known as a Leftist country, though the perceptions changed in the last twenty years. India, during the leadership of Nehru and to a certain extent during the first few years of India Gandhi was perceived as Leftist. So the term Left may denote a whole range of politics from social democrat to extreme Marxist- Leninist ideologies.
Though many may call ‘socialism’ or ‘communism’ – formal political model or policy choices as the real Left, it is important to also remember that Hitler too advocated for National Socialism- and claimed to work towards an egalitarian society in Germany. The full of name of Nazi Party was The National Socialist German Workers party. The irony is that both Joseph Stalin and Hitler claimed to be Socialists- and also said to represent the worker’s right- were responsible for the death of millions of people. The brutal and murderous Regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia too was supposed to be ‘leftist' Many of the early Zionists began as socialists and communists in Europe in the early twentieth century. So various kinds of authoritarian regimes claimed to be left, in their effort to appropriate the entire political space, presumably representing the cause of ‘people’ and workers ‘ So the term ‘left’ has a rather contested trajectory with different connotations at different points of time and contexts.
What does Left mean today? After the collapse of Soviet Union and transformation of China in to market economy, there were not many examples of Left as a Regime- though on ‘relative’ scale various political parties were termed Left or Right based on the perception and political dynamics in a particular country. There are also many parties which began as Left ended up as extreme Right wing. For example JVP in Sri Lanka- which began with Marxist ideology of change ended up as the representatives of extreme Sinhala Chauvinism in the context of political contestations based on Ethnicity and civil war. So the term Left is rather a fluid category- more in relation to other political positions which seek to maintain the status-quo of the powerful establishment and interests at a given time.
Emerging Trends
Hence, it is important to understand and locate the term Leftwing Politics, in the context of the changes in politics, economy and society. There is a shrinking of democratic space across the world; there is an elite capture of the state; there is a marginalisation and mistrusts based on identity; and there is the emergence of a right-wing identity politics in different parts of the world. Hence those who question such injustices and marginalisation have a role to play in the world and in India. So the Left Politics is still relevant, though such transformative politics needs to be firmly rooted in the new praxis of true democratisation and respect for all human rights.
It would be good to consider twelve key political and socio-economic trends when we try to explore the possibilities of the future of the Left:
1) Cumulative marginalisation of groups of people in the different contexts- denying their rights to live with dignity
2) Increasing identity politics based on religious ideology- and cultural contours. Increasing sense about social, political and economic inequality between countries and within countries.
3) Unprecedented rate of urbanisation, increase in urban poverty, inequality and consequent violence
4) New crisis of ecology, economy and food
5) Degeneration of political party system as election networks of various interests, with only goal of capturing the state, for the comforts of power, by political and economic elites.
6) Increasing corporatisation of the State and the influence of corporate financing on political process and elections.
7) Spread of consumerism as a part of the cultural and social pathology across the world.
8) The new wave of xenophobia , stereotyping and mistrust between people of different cultural and religious background
9) The path-breaking information and communication revolution created new forms of communications and communities and new global community of people virtually connected and networked to each other than ever
10) The emergence of a global elite- seeking to influence three- Ms- Military, Market and Media— to control and capture the power of the state
11) The emergence of a multi-polar world with new tensions between countries
12) Emergence of a global movement of people- through multiple forms of mobilization through internet, global civil society networks and increasing networked new social movements and peace movements of a wide variety – claiming the global Left political space campaigning for a world without poverty, injustice, war and exploitation of nature and people.
Locating the Left
Beyond the binary- comparative spectrum, in reality most of the governments draw policies and politics from multiple sources of normative framework- some of them would be from the left spectrum and others from the right. It is indeed a difficult to see a ‘perfect’ text book Communist, Socialist or Capitalist model anywhere in the world.
In such a context it is important to think beyond the formal models of any particular text book versions or cultivated dogmas ( as models of government and as clear prescriptive forms) in the 19th and 20th century. It is important to reconceptualise the Left politics for the 21 century. While it is good to be informed by the analysis, experiences and experiments of the past, it is important to outgrow the text-book versions of any one model, to relocate a new left politics within the context of democratic governance and justice.
As long as there is dominating status-quo, marginalisation, alienation, discrimination, and violation of human rights, Left has a role to play in globally and in India.
The future of Left Politics needs to be informed by the original ideals of the Left (freedom, fraternity, Rights and Justice); however there is a need to develop a new praxis of governance and government in the context of the emerging issues and trends. Though political party process is important, a new weave of left politics need to be shaped beyond the conventional confines of Party Politics and beyond the mere intentions of capturing the power of the state. While Party Politics is an important factor, when Party Politics itself become a part of a status-quo of the vested- interest-matrix, the real initiatives for transformative politics would only come from non-party political process. Because, possible creative initiatives and movements tend to operate beyond the usual confines of the interests of an institution or establishment.
The issues and perspectives of gender justice, social-economic and ecological justice should inform the left politics. Justice- as a concept has an ethical underpinning - in a way informed by all positive elements in the religious-ethical legacies. Equity- in terms of opportunities and access to resources, and equality in terms of dignity- and as citizens- would be important. So, the principles of Dignity, non- discrimination, civil and political rights, and inalienable rights as human beings should inform such a left politics.
And it is important to understand and appreciate that Ethics, Ecology and Economy are inter-related. Planet and People should take precedence over any efforts to maximise profit. And any monopoly of power- in terms of politics, economy and institutions- need to be challenged.
It is time to discard any mechanical formalism or for that matter ‘Statist’ ideology masquerading as ‘socialism’ or the Left. More important point is to rediscover the ethical premises of justice, freedom, Rights, Responsibility and translate them in to real life choices, institutional context and policy contexts. The notion of a teleological or linear march to Communist ‘salvation’ or nirvana-(with withering away of the state) taking 'scientific steps' 1, 2, 3,4 etc proved to be redundant. While it is important to organise and mobilize people against injustice and oppression, it is also important to have the compatibility of means and end. And unjust means can never be a justification for a just end. Any politics of violence would breed violence. Politics of annihilation and the authoritarianism of any kind (in the name of a proletariat or politburo) cannot be the real Left Politics- as it violates the basic idea of freedom.
Left in the context of India
The very constitution of India is a commitment and promise towards a more equitable, and just society with guarantee of Human Rights. However, even after sixty four year of Independence, substantive freedom is postponed for millions of Indians. There are still millions of mothers dying at child birth. It is reported that more than two hundred thousand farmers committed suicide due to debt and inability to manage small or medium scale agriculture. There is also increasing instances of inequality and injustice. There is an increasing communalisation of politics and new forms marginalisation based on cast, creed and identity. One in four Indians may still go to bed hungry.
Though the Nehrivian paradigm of social democracy firmly established the foundation of the new Indian Republic and made the first initiatives for affirmative action, India is yet to realize the promises and potential of the Constitution or the ideal of the Republic. After sixty years of Independence, a new political class, with the patronage of new economic elites emerged in India. While new paradigms of urban-centric economic growth models helped to create a new ‘Shining’ Indian upper-middle class in the metropolitan cities of India, it also pushed out the concerns of the marginalised and poor from the centre of the ‘development’ discourse. ‘Development’ was seen more in terms of inequitable economic growth, urban infrastructure, and employment opportunities for the upward-mobile middle class. And the fact of the matter is that more than 70 percent of the Indian population, living in villages and small towns hardly got any stake in this process ‘development’. The neo-liberal policy paradigm promoted ‘development’ in terms of ‘economic growth’ and GDP- and at the cost of majority of Indians at the receiving end of sky-rocketing price of essential commodities, lack of housing or gainful employment and decreasing democratic space to assert. While political parties expressed their concerns and sought votes- on the basis of identity of cast, creed and religion, they often fail to translate the rhetoric of election manifestos in to practical policy options in favour of the poor and marginalised. As a result, there has been less investment to support rural employment, sustainable agriculture, rural infrastructure or the social and economic development of the historically marginalised and minorities in India. Historically marginalised sections of people- Dalit, Adivasies and various kinds of religious and ethnic minorities form almost fifty percent of the Indian Population. In spite of all rhetoric of manifestos and the ‘vote-bank’ politics during the elections, most of the governments have fallen to the erroneous notions of ‘development’ as ‘economic growth’ – along with investment in impressive urban infrastructure. This creates new forms social and economic inequality. And such new inequality and perceived sense of injustice would breed new forms of social and political violence in India. And the new waves of Right-wing fascist formation in the form of Hindutva agenda create further insecurities among the marginalised communities in India. Such political contexts undermine the very promises and ideals of the Republic of India.
It is in this context that there is a space and scope for a new Left discourse, promoting equity, justice and socio-economic growth;ensuring human rights and human development to all sections of people, particularly the marginalised sections and the rural poor. A broader Left political discourse need to include a cross section of the civil society, social movements and political parties. However, Left agenda needs to be seen beyond the confines of one political party or other. Because Political parties- including the Communist Parties in India have become mere electoral networks or institutions to win or lose elections- and 'capture' the state to enjoy the 'comforts' of power. So a Left agenda need to be seen across political parties and beyond political parties. Political Parties are important actors in a democratic process. However, one of the important agenda of Left discourse also needs to be democratisation and accountability of political parties.
The irony of Indian Democracy is that there are an increasing number of political parties based on feudal or semi-feudal values. A significant number of members of the Parliament are there due to their pedigree, rather than their credibility as leaders of the people. The corporate financing of most of the Political parties by rich family run companies is at the core of political corruption in India. This leads to a new nexus between the lobby of rich and powerful economic elites and the political ‘managers’ of various political parties. So increasingly the economic elites seek to control the apparatus of the state and that of government – through their political and media operatives. A handful of economic elites can influence the political and policy making process- by financing political leaders, parties and by indirectly owning or controlling the mainstream media (through stocks or through adversely impacting the advertisement.) It is this systemic subversion of democracy, annulling the possibility of the promises of the Indian Constitution, and creating more inequality and consequent violence, at the core of the crisis of democratic Governance in India.
Hence, reclaiming the state and the democratic space in favour of the large majority of the marginalised and poor people need to be the number one priority of a transformative political process in India. This requires a whole range of coordinated process – to build more ethically driven leadership, a non-violent mass movement seeking economic and political reform and very clear advocacy agenda to influence public policies in favour of the marginalised and poor. India requires a new socio-political agenda and social reform movement of young people to challenge and change the situation. India requires new modes of social mobilization and creative action for a transformative politics.
In the context of Kerala, it is rather a difficult task to make a distinction between a Left Party and others- except in names. Because in Kerala, most of the people belong to a middle-class consumerist culture. Old Communist dreams were replaced by new consumerist dreams. Though there is lots of rhetoric about workers right, Kerala has a labour deficit- and now there are migration of labour from other states. Though in terms of 'party' and 'election discourse' the term Left is in prevalence, all main political parties in Kerala are a part of the status-quo; when it comes to social conservatism, issue of gender, cast and creed. So the question is what is left out of the Left in Kerala?
While in the context of world, India and Kerala, there is a space and need for a broad left movement- beyond the conventional party lines.There is less optimism regarding the long term role and viability of the Communist Parties- as the only custodians of Left Politics, as they stand now. This is due to the fact that in the last 30 years, the mainstream communist parties failed to capture the imagination of the poor and marginalised- adivasies, dalits, urban poor and others. They were busy enjoying and sustaining the power-base in three states. And in the process, CPM became a Bengal-Kerala party in its leadership and structure and fails to be a real pan-Indian Party. Even in the context of Kerala and Bengal, it was more a question of surviving and sustaining their base as a 'ruling' party. Slowly 'Communism' and 'Socialism' were for the slogans and rhetoric as the parties in these states become entrenched power-establishment with muscle and money power- and associated arrogance.
The fact of the matter is the India needs a vibrant and broad-based left movement. This has to happen at three level a) At the level of the Congress party - as a network party, it is possible to revitalize the ideals and ideas of Nehru b) At the level of communist and socialist parties- it is time they rethink their strategies and to position as a board based left alternative c) At the level of civil society initiatives and social movement- of non-party Politics. All these three forces- though in different locations may have to co-ordinate and work together -rather than undermining each other- against the elite capture of the Indian state, against communal fascism, and against inequalities, marginalisation and corruption. There has to be movement for social and political accountability and upholding of the Indian constitution.
Kerala requires a new Social Reform Movement- more in the legacy of Narayana Guru and those happened in the early twentieth century. What is required is a social transformation in Kerala and India. This requires broader movement than that of political parties- to influence the mindset, choices and attitude of the people
Emerging Role of Left: Towards a Transformative Politics
Social and political transformation happen through a whole range of cumulative process for radical shifts as well reformist advocacy: through knowledge, language, technology, and institutions. Hence influencing of such cumulative process for reformation as well as radical shifts is important for transformative humanism and democracy
Critiquing the institutionalized forms of power is the first step towards transforming the dynamics of power. Institutionalized and dominant forms of power tend to self-preserve through benign or malignant modes of tyranny and terror; coercion and consensus; and “common’ sense as well culture. If not constantly critiqued and challenged, all forms of institutionalized power can be oppressive, subjugating and dehumanizing. Hence, critiquing and transforming institutionalized power is an effort to resist dehumanization and relentlessly trying to humanize and democratize power. This requires a combination of the politics of people, politics of knowledge, and politics of communication to challenge the dominating forms of power: whether it is the power of the state or power of the market or power of mafia.
Every human action and institution needs to be historicized, problematised, politicized and democratized. Critical transformative approach involves consistent and constant critique of power and a commitment to challenge unjust power-relationship so as to humanize and democratize people, society, knowledge and institutions. Critical transformist approach to politics involves working within institution and working beyond institutions; such an approach involves resisting, engaging and persuading power-relationships to ensure justice as fairness and human dignity as the right to live in freedom.
The grammar of power- within micro and macro arena is often controlled by the institutionalization of knowledge, norms and historical and cultural ordering of life-worlds. This ordering of power is more often unequal and mostly unjust. Such unjust power-relationships get expressed through discrimination, deficit of dignity, exploitation, alienation and eventual dehumanization. So it is moral responsibility to humanize, deconstruct, decentralize and democratize power in all its forms and expressions
Social transformation requires intensive engagement with micro-politics- by challenging, changing, reforming and transforming to make it just and equitable. This involves changing language, attitude, behaviour as well as spaces and expressions of power within the family and communities. The most manifest form of micro-politics is the control over productive and reproductive sources. And this control is mostly expressed in terms of patriarchy that seeks to control women- as the most important reproductive source of life and living. Most of the unjust power-relationships codified in micro-politics of expected roles, and spaces- of body, life and life-worlds: in terms of rituals associated with birth, marriage and death. And in relation to sexual roles, pleasure and pains involved in orgasm- and sexual choices.
The nation-state derives its power from the legitimacy and legitmation of the constitution- with a claim of sovereignty and monopoly of power over a territory and people living in such a territory. Every constitution is constituted, through historical, knowledge, economic, social and cultural process- through various negotiations of power in all such spheres. The politics of the State is often the defining force of Macro-politics. The grammar of the power within and beyond a given nation-state determines the power-relationships in all other institutional arenas. The “statutory” legitimation process of market, civil society and religion are based on “regulation” of the power and politics of the state. Such constant negotiations and ‘regulations” of technology of power tend to create cultures of govermentality of power- in terms of legitimation, control as well as spaces.
There is a tendency of those in controlling the nodal locations of power to monopolize power- through claims of sovereignty. This monopolization of power to control natural, productive and reproductive resources, through ‘discipline” and promises of “security”, are at the root of unjust politics both in its micro and macro expressions
Hence a transformative politics is driven by a universal ethics- moral choices and value premises - informed by human dignity, equality, justice, responsibility to each other and the planet. It is informed and inspired by movements and struggles for economic, social, gender and ecological justice. Such a politics derives its moral legitimacy from various struggles and efforts to humanize the world- all through history- through care and love; through our creative and committed searches for making the world and planet a better place to live. Transformative politics is about imaginative potential of human beings to influence and transform the world within them, around them and beyond- in constant search for freedom and justice. Democratization is at the core of it. Democratization can only happen when there is spaces for dissent as well dignity: spaces to protest as well to propose; spaces to imagine as well as innovate. Creativity, Community and Communication (through language and technology) are three aspect that make human different from animals. And democratization is a process to affirm and constantly rediscover the potential and possibilities of human creativity, community solidarity and communicative actions.
Transformative politics is about the democratization of power, knowledge, technology and language. Politics is to make change happen towards a just, sustainable, responsible world- without poverty and war. Politics is to fight injustice, exclusion, marginalization and dehumanization. Social and Political Transformation begin to unfold when every person can celebrate her/his dignity and right to dissent and development. Transforming politics involves making market work for the people- not the other way around. Democratisation happens when people can seek accountability from all power-holders, State, Market and civil society. Politics is to restore the sovereignty of people and reclaim the state to citizens and the democratization of at levels of human action and institutions.
A creative Politics for must take responsibility to imagine and suggest alternatives to unjust power-relationships. Politics should help us to move towards -a world without poverty and injustice where every person can live a life of dignity, freedom, enjoyment and responsibility.
We get politically transformed and empowered when we acquire the courage of conviction to ensure sustainability of our planet, people, and a just world.
What does 'Left' mean today? How do we contextualise the role of the Left politics in the world, and India?
The term Left is a relative and comparative category rather than indicative of a clear political ideology or political philosophy. The term ‘Left’ can signify a whole range of policies and political positions. Left can have multiple connotations in multiple contexts and periods- indicating social democrats, socialists, communists, anarchists, greens, and even Liberals in the context of the USA. Though it signifies a broad range of politics and policies that seek to change the society to a more equitable and egalitarian direction, the use of the term precedes the movement for socialism or communism in the late 19th century. The Left is generally seen as political bias in favour of equality, fraternity, Freedom and emancipation- with a policy bias in favour of a more active government, welfare state and the marginalised sections or class of people. Right wing politics is generally perceived in terms of the maintenance of the status-quo, conservative values, individualism, less role of the government, accumulation of wealth, maximisation of profit and free market ideology.
In spite of such broad indications, it is not easy to put people in to such neat categories as most of the people derive their worldview, perspectives and attitude from a variety of sources and contexts ; their perspectives are often shaped by the power-relationship at a given point in time, social locations and cultural contexts.
The notions of Leftwing and Rightwing emerged during the French Revolution, referring to the seating arrangement in parliament; those who sat on the left generally supported the radical changes of the revolution, including the creation of republic and secularization. Radical Montagnard and Jacobian deputies form the Third Estate used to sit left to the President’s Chair, a practice that began in the Estates General of 1789. All through the 19th century the main dividing line between the Left and Right in France was that Left supported Republic and the Right was for Monarchy.
So the term Left is more indicative of those who questioned the status-quo of power and sought change in favour of more freedom. The term Left could mean different things in different countries. In the US, a political liberal who support affirmative action, poverty-eradication etc are termed as Leftist. But the meaning could be different in Europe- where those who supported workers rights and more rights for immigrants etc are termed as the Left. China, once up on a time, was known as a Leftist country, though the perceptions changed in the last twenty years. India, during the leadership of Nehru and to a certain extent during the first few years of India Gandhi was perceived as Leftist. So the term Left may denote a whole range of politics from social democrat to extreme Marxist- Leninist ideologies.
Though many may call ‘socialism’ or ‘communism’ – formal political model or policy choices as the real Left, it is important to also remember that Hitler too advocated for National Socialism- and claimed to work towards an egalitarian society in Germany. The full of name of Nazi Party was The National Socialist German Workers party. The irony is that both Joseph Stalin and Hitler claimed to be Socialists- and also said to represent the worker’s right- were responsible for the death of millions of people. The brutal and murderous Regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia too was supposed to be ‘leftist' Many of the early Zionists began as socialists and communists in Europe in the early twentieth century. So various kinds of authoritarian regimes claimed to be left, in their effort to appropriate the entire political space, presumably representing the cause of ‘people’ and workers ‘ So the term ‘left’ has a rather contested trajectory with different connotations at different points of time and contexts.
What does Left mean today? After the collapse of Soviet Union and transformation of China in to market economy, there were not many examples of Left as a Regime- though on ‘relative’ scale various political parties were termed Left or Right based on the perception and political dynamics in a particular country. There are also many parties which began as Left ended up as extreme Right wing. For example JVP in Sri Lanka- which began with Marxist ideology of change ended up as the representatives of extreme Sinhala Chauvinism in the context of political contestations based on Ethnicity and civil war. So the term Left is rather a fluid category- more in relation to other political positions which seek to maintain the status-quo of the powerful establishment and interests at a given time.
Emerging Trends
Hence, it is important to understand and locate the term Leftwing Politics, in the context of the changes in politics, economy and society. There is a shrinking of democratic space across the world; there is an elite capture of the state; there is a marginalisation and mistrusts based on identity; and there is the emergence of a right-wing identity politics in different parts of the world. Hence those who question such injustices and marginalisation have a role to play in the world and in India. So the Left Politics is still relevant, though such transformative politics needs to be firmly rooted in the new praxis of true democratisation and respect for all human rights.
It would be good to consider twelve key political and socio-economic trends when we try to explore the possibilities of the future of the Left:
1) Cumulative marginalisation of groups of people in the different contexts- denying their rights to live with dignity
2) Increasing identity politics based on religious ideology- and cultural contours. Increasing sense about social, political and economic inequality between countries and within countries.
3) Unprecedented rate of urbanisation, increase in urban poverty, inequality and consequent violence
4) New crisis of ecology, economy and food
5) Degeneration of political party system as election networks of various interests, with only goal of capturing the state, for the comforts of power, by political and economic elites.
6) Increasing corporatisation of the State and the influence of corporate financing on political process and elections.
7) Spread of consumerism as a part of the cultural and social pathology across the world.
8) The new wave of xenophobia , stereotyping and mistrust between people of different cultural and religious background
9) The path-breaking information and communication revolution created new forms of communications and communities and new global community of people virtually connected and networked to each other than ever
10) The emergence of a global elite- seeking to influence three- Ms- Military, Market and Media— to control and capture the power of the state
11) The emergence of a multi-polar world with new tensions between countries
12) Emergence of a global movement of people- through multiple forms of mobilization through internet, global civil society networks and increasing networked new social movements and peace movements of a wide variety – claiming the global Left political space campaigning for a world without poverty, injustice, war and exploitation of nature and people.
Locating the Left
Beyond the binary- comparative spectrum, in reality most of the governments draw policies and politics from multiple sources of normative framework- some of them would be from the left spectrum and others from the right. It is indeed a difficult to see a ‘perfect’ text book Communist, Socialist or Capitalist model anywhere in the world.
In such a context it is important to think beyond the formal models of any particular text book versions or cultivated dogmas ( as models of government and as clear prescriptive forms) in the 19th and 20th century. It is important to reconceptualise the Left politics for the 21 century. While it is good to be informed by the analysis, experiences and experiments of the past, it is important to outgrow the text-book versions of any one model, to relocate a new left politics within the context of democratic governance and justice.
As long as there is dominating status-quo, marginalisation, alienation, discrimination, and violation of human rights, Left has a role to play in globally and in India.
The future of Left Politics needs to be informed by the original ideals of the Left (freedom, fraternity, Rights and Justice); however there is a need to develop a new praxis of governance and government in the context of the emerging issues and trends. Though political party process is important, a new weave of left politics need to be shaped beyond the conventional confines of Party Politics and beyond the mere intentions of capturing the power of the state. While Party Politics is an important factor, when Party Politics itself become a part of a status-quo of the vested- interest-matrix, the real initiatives for transformative politics would only come from non-party political process. Because, possible creative initiatives and movements tend to operate beyond the usual confines of the interests of an institution or establishment.
The issues and perspectives of gender justice, social-economic and ecological justice should inform the left politics. Justice- as a concept has an ethical underpinning - in a way informed by all positive elements in the religious-ethical legacies. Equity- in terms of opportunities and access to resources, and equality in terms of dignity- and as citizens- would be important. So, the principles of Dignity, non- discrimination, civil and political rights, and inalienable rights as human beings should inform such a left politics.
And it is important to understand and appreciate that Ethics, Ecology and Economy are inter-related. Planet and People should take precedence over any efforts to maximise profit. And any monopoly of power- in terms of politics, economy and institutions- need to be challenged.
It is time to discard any mechanical formalism or for that matter ‘Statist’ ideology masquerading as ‘socialism’ or the Left. More important point is to rediscover the ethical premises of justice, freedom, Rights, Responsibility and translate them in to real life choices, institutional context and policy contexts. The notion of a teleological or linear march to Communist ‘salvation’ or nirvana-(with withering away of the state) taking 'scientific steps' 1, 2, 3,4 etc proved to be redundant. While it is important to organise and mobilize people against injustice and oppression, it is also important to have the compatibility of means and end. And unjust means can never be a justification for a just end. Any politics of violence would breed violence. Politics of annihilation and the authoritarianism of any kind (in the name of a proletariat or politburo) cannot be the real Left Politics- as it violates the basic idea of freedom.
Left in the context of India
The very constitution of India is a commitment and promise towards a more equitable, and just society with guarantee of Human Rights. However, even after sixty four year of Independence, substantive freedom is postponed for millions of Indians. There are still millions of mothers dying at child birth. It is reported that more than two hundred thousand farmers committed suicide due to debt and inability to manage small or medium scale agriculture. There is also increasing instances of inequality and injustice. There is an increasing communalisation of politics and new forms marginalisation based on cast, creed and identity. One in four Indians may still go to bed hungry.
Though the Nehrivian paradigm of social democracy firmly established the foundation of the new Indian Republic and made the first initiatives for affirmative action, India is yet to realize the promises and potential of the Constitution or the ideal of the Republic. After sixty years of Independence, a new political class, with the patronage of new economic elites emerged in India. While new paradigms of urban-centric economic growth models helped to create a new ‘Shining’ Indian upper-middle class in the metropolitan cities of India, it also pushed out the concerns of the marginalised and poor from the centre of the ‘development’ discourse. ‘Development’ was seen more in terms of inequitable economic growth, urban infrastructure, and employment opportunities for the upward-mobile middle class. And the fact of the matter is that more than 70 percent of the Indian population, living in villages and small towns hardly got any stake in this process ‘development’. The neo-liberal policy paradigm promoted ‘development’ in terms of ‘economic growth’ and GDP- and at the cost of majority of Indians at the receiving end of sky-rocketing price of essential commodities, lack of housing or gainful employment and decreasing democratic space to assert. While political parties expressed their concerns and sought votes- on the basis of identity of cast, creed and religion, they often fail to translate the rhetoric of election manifestos in to practical policy options in favour of the poor and marginalised. As a result, there has been less investment to support rural employment, sustainable agriculture, rural infrastructure or the social and economic development of the historically marginalised and minorities in India. Historically marginalised sections of people- Dalit, Adivasies and various kinds of religious and ethnic minorities form almost fifty percent of the Indian Population. In spite of all rhetoric of manifestos and the ‘vote-bank’ politics during the elections, most of the governments have fallen to the erroneous notions of ‘development’ as ‘economic growth’ – along with investment in impressive urban infrastructure. This creates new forms social and economic inequality. And such new inequality and perceived sense of injustice would breed new forms of social and political violence in India. And the new waves of Right-wing fascist formation in the form of Hindutva agenda create further insecurities among the marginalised communities in India. Such political contexts undermine the very promises and ideals of the Republic of India.
It is in this context that there is a space and scope for a new Left discourse, promoting equity, justice and socio-economic growth;ensuring human rights and human development to all sections of people, particularly the marginalised sections and the rural poor. A broader Left political discourse need to include a cross section of the civil society, social movements and political parties. However, Left agenda needs to be seen beyond the confines of one political party or other. Because Political parties- including the Communist Parties in India have become mere electoral networks or institutions to win or lose elections- and 'capture' the state to enjoy the 'comforts' of power. So a Left agenda need to be seen across political parties and beyond political parties. Political Parties are important actors in a democratic process. However, one of the important agenda of Left discourse also needs to be democratisation and accountability of political parties.
The irony of Indian Democracy is that there are an increasing number of political parties based on feudal or semi-feudal values. A significant number of members of the Parliament are there due to their pedigree, rather than their credibility as leaders of the people. The corporate financing of most of the Political parties by rich family run companies is at the core of political corruption in India. This leads to a new nexus between the lobby of rich and powerful economic elites and the political ‘managers’ of various political parties. So increasingly the economic elites seek to control the apparatus of the state and that of government – through their political and media operatives. A handful of economic elites can influence the political and policy making process- by financing political leaders, parties and by indirectly owning or controlling the mainstream media (through stocks or through adversely impacting the advertisement.) It is this systemic subversion of democracy, annulling the possibility of the promises of the Indian Constitution, and creating more inequality and consequent violence, at the core of the crisis of democratic Governance in India.
Hence, reclaiming the state and the democratic space in favour of the large majority of the marginalised and poor people need to be the number one priority of a transformative political process in India. This requires a whole range of coordinated process – to build more ethically driven leadership, a non-violent mass movement seeking economic and political reform and very clear advocacy agenda to influence public policies in favour of the marginalised and poor. India requires a new socio-political agenda and social reform movement of young people to challenge and change the situation. India requires new modes of social mobilization and creative action for a transformative politics.
In the context of Kerala, it is rather a difficult task to make a distinction between a Left Party and others- except in names. Because in Kerala, most of the people belong to a middle-class consumerist culture. Old Communist dreams were replaced by new consumerist dreams. Though there is lots of rhetoric about workers right, Kerala has a labour deficit- and now there are migration of labour from other states. Though in terms of 'party' and 'election discourse' the term Left is in prevalence, all main political parties in Kerala are a part of the status-quo; when it comes to social conservatism, issue of gender, cast and creed. So the question is what is left out of the Left in Kerala?
While in the context of world, India and Kerala, there is a space and need for a broad left movement- beyond the conventional party lines.There is less optimism regarding the long term role and viability of the Communist Parties- as the only custodians of Left Politics, as they stand now. This is due to the fact that in the last 30 years, the mainstream communist parties failed to capture the imagination of the poor and marginalised- adivasies, dalits, urban poor and others. They were busy enjoying and sustaining the power-base in three states. And in the process, CPM became a Bengal-Kerala party in its leadership and structure and fails to be a real pan-Indian Party. Even in the context of Kerala and Bengal, it was more a question of surviving and sustaining their base as a 'ruling' party. Slowly 'Communism' and 'Socialism' were for the slogans and rhetoric as the parties in these states become entrenched power-establishment with muscle and money power- and associated arrogance.
The fact of the matter is the India needs a vibrant and broad-based left movement. This has to happen at three level a) At the level of the Congress party - as a network party, it is possible to revitalize the ideals and ideas of Nehru b) At the level of communist and socialist parties- it is time they rethink their strategies and to position as a board based left alternative c) At the level of civil society initiatives and social movement- of non-party Politics. All these three forces- though in different locations may have to co-ordinate and work together -rather than undermining each other- against the elite capture of the Indian state, against communal fascism, and against inequalities, marginalisation and corruption. There has to be movement for social and political accountability and upholding of the Indian constitution.
Kerala requires a new Social Reform Movement- more in the legacy of Narayana Guru and those happened in the early twentieth century. What is required is a social transformation in Kerala and India. This requires broader movement than that of political parties- to influence the mindset, choices and attitude of the people
Emerging Role of Left: Towards a Transformative Politics
Social and political transformation happen through a whole range of cumulative process for radical shifts as well reformist advocacy: through knowledge, language, technology, and institutions. Hence influencing of such cumulative process for reformation as well as radical shifts is important for transformative humanism and democracy
Critiquing the institutionalized forms of power is the first step towards transforming the dynamics of power. Institutionalized and dominant forms of power tend to self-preserve through benign or malignant modes of tyranny and terror; coercion and consensus; and “common’ sense as well culture. If not constantly critiqued and challenged, all forms of institutionalized power can be oppressive, subjugating and dehumanizing. Hence, critiquing and transforming institutionalized power is an effort to resist dehumanization and relentlessly trying to humanize and democratize power. This requires a combination of the politics of people, politics of knowledge, and politics of communication to challenge the dominating forms of power: whether it is the power of the state or power of the market or power of mafia.
Every human action and institution needs to be historicized, problematised, politicized and democratized. Critical transformative approach involves consistent and constant critique of power and a commitment to challenge unjust power-relationship so as to humanize and democratize people, society, knowledge and institutions. Critical transformist approach to politics involves working within institution and working beyond institutions; such an approach involves resisting, engaging and persuading power-relationships to ensure justice as fairness and human dignity as the right to live in freedom.
The grammar of power- within micro and macro arena is often controlled by the institutionalization of knowledge, norms and historical and cultural ordering of life-worlds. This ordering of power is more often unequal and mostly unjust. Such unjust power-relationships get expressed through discrimination, deficit of dignity, exploitation, alienation and eventual dehumanization. So it is moral responsibility to humanize, deconstruct, decentralize and democratize power in all its forms and expressions
Social transformation requires intensive engagement with micro-politics- by challenging, changing, reforming and transforming to make it just and equitable. This involves changing language, attitude, behaviour as well as spaces and expressions of power within the family and communities. The most manifest form of micro-politics is the control over productive and reproductive sources. And this control is mostly expressed in terms of patriarchy that seeks to control women- as the most important reproductive source of life and living. Most of the unjust power-relationships codified in micro-politics of expected roles, and spaces- of body, life and life-worlds: in terms of rituals associated with birth, marriage and death. And in relation to sexual roles, pleasure and pains involved in orgasm- and sexual choices.
The nation-state derives its power from the legitimacy and legitmation of the constitution- with a claim of sovereignty and monopoly of power over a territory and people living in such a territory. Every constitution is constituted, through historical, knowledge, economic, social and cultural process- through various negotiations of power in all such spheres. The politics of the State is often the defining force of Macro-politics. The grammar of the power within and beyond a given nation-state determines the power-relationships in all other institutional arenas. The “statutory” legitimation process of market, civil society and religion are based on “regulation” of the power and politics of the state. Such constant negotiations and ‘regulations” of technology of power tend to create cultures of govermentality of power- in terms of legitimation, control as well as spaces.
There is a tendency of those in controlling the nodal locations of power to monopolize power- through claims of sovereignty. This monopolization of power to control natural, productive and reproductive resources, through ‘discipline” and promises of “security”, are at the root of unjust politics both in its micro and macro expressions
Hence a transformative politics is driven by a universal ethics- moral choices and value premises - informed by human dignity, equality, justice, responsibility to each other and the planet. It is informed and inspired by movements and struggles for economic, social, gender and ecological justice. Such a politics derives its moral legitimacy from various struggles and efforts to humanize the world- all through history- through care and love; through our creative and committed searches for making the world and planet a better place to live. Transformative politics is about imaginative potential of human beings to influence and transform the world within them, around them and beyond- in constant search for freedom and justice. Democratization is at the core of it. Democratization can only happen when there is spaces for dissent as well dignity: spaces to protest as well to propose; spaces to imagine as well as innovate. Creativity, Community and Communication (through language and technology) are three aspect that make human different from animals. And democratization is a process to affirm and constantly rediscover the potential and possibilities of human creativity, community solidarity and communicative actions.
Transformative politics is about the democratization of power, knowledge, technology and language. Politics is to make change happen towards a just, sustainable, responsible world- without poverty and war. Politics is to fight injustice, exclusion, marginalization and dehumanization. Social and Political Transformation begin to unfold when every person can celebrate her/his dignity and right to dissent and development. Transforming politics involves making market work for the people- not the other way around. Democratisation happens when people can seek accountability from all power-holders, State, Market and civil society. Politics is to restore the sovereignty of people and reclaim the state to citizens and the democratization of at levels of human action and institutions.
A creative Politics for must take responsibility to imagine and suggest alternatives to unjust power-relationships. Politics should help us to move towards -a world without poverty and injustice where every person can live a life of dignity, freedom, enjoyment and responsibility.
We get politically transformed and empowered when we acquire the courage of conviction to ensure sustainability of our planet, people, and a just world.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Egypt at Cross-Roads
John Samuel
At the heart of Cairo, Tahrir square- the square of Liberation, is surrounded by very important institutions of power and culture. The square was named after the Liberation, in 1952, from the rule of a corrupt and feeble Monarchy. A group of young military officers forced out the monarchy, a puppet regime of the British colonialists. And in 2011, hundreds of thousands of largely middle class people, particularly young, want an aging Hosni Mubarak to leave the chair- for the people. Hosni Mubarak ruled Egypt more than anyone since Muhammad Ali in the early nineteenth (from 1805) century.
Over a period of thirty years, the regime systematically subverted, marginalised or annihilated any voice of dissent or opposition or democratic freedom. Though in 2005, under the pressure from the US, Hosni Mubarak sought to create a smoke screen of 'democratic' election, it did not help the eroding legitimacy of the regime. The rise of a corrupt network of rich people around the regime and the efforts to install his younger son, Gamel Mubarak, as the next ruler further alienated a large number of urban middle class across Egypt.
The growing social and economic inequality, along with increasing price of essential commodities and decreasing employment opportunities provided the trigger for expressing the widespread discontent brewing over many years. The popular uprising against another long-ruling dictator in the Arab World provided new inspiration for the younger generation. Al-Jazeera televised the 'Revolution' in Tunis. This inspired imagination of the young and found the expression of anger, pent-up over the years. This was the first time a majority of them ever participated in a protest movement. The loose social network of young people on Face book to commemorate Khaled Said, a young man allegedly beaten to death by the Police, gave a call for a protest on 25th January (Police Day), to highlight the brutality of the Police. Those in the April 6th network and few from the Ghad( Tomorrow) Party of former Presidential candidate Ayman Nour supported the call for a protest mobilisation on 25th January They expected few hundred; but thousands of people wanted to chant Liberation at the good old Liberation Square. That is how the popular urge for a revolution began!
It is important to understand the present social and political mobilisation in the context of the history, geo-politics and the larger international politics.
Understanding the political history of Egypt
Egypt is not simply another country. Egypt is the only trans-continental nation-state with an influence in Africa, Mediterranean region, Arab world and within the larger framework of Pan-Islamic world. Egypt- with a written history of more than six thousand years, still remain the most eloquent symbol of the March of history and power in the entire history of the world. One of the first unified Kingdoms in the world was founded in the region in BCE 3150 by King Menes, followed by a series of dynasties of Pharaohs. Some of the most evident form of the expression of power, in the form of Pyramids, followed by the development of Alexandria as one of the most important centres of trade, culture and civilizations, during the Roman Era created an enduring and entrenched sense of hegemonic role for the country. Egypt has influenced Europe, Asia and Africa in so many ways all through the history. Christianity was introduced in Egypt by St. Mark, the disciple of Jesus and the Coptic Church of Egypt still remains one of the ancient churches in the world. The journey of Egypt through the Roman Empire, Byzantium, absorption in to the emerging Islamic empire in CE 639, and annexation to Ottoman empire 1571 and the emergence of new monarchy under Mohammed Ali in 1805 and the eventual over throw of the monarchy of King Farouk in 1952 by Free Officers Movement, led by a group of Army officers give us broad sense about the complexity of the political trajectory of the country.
It is with the French invasion by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1789, Egypt began to face the colonial and imperialistic powers of the west, in the form of French and then the British domination. During the Ottoman campaign against the French in 1801, Muhammad Ali, an Albanian general in the Ottoman Army took over the control of Egypt. The real interest of the colonial powers in Egypt began when the Suez Canal was completed in 1869, in partnership with the French. The Suez Canal completed during the tenure of King Islamil had immense political consequences. The heavy cost of construction of the canal left Egypt with a huge debt to the European Banks. And to pay back the Debt, the people were over taxed and this created new political tensions. Making use of this opportunity, the British took over the canal and converted the monarchy in to a puppet regime and eventually making Egypt a British Protectorate in 1914.
The first political mobilisation against foreign intruders and monarchy and the seeds of the first nationalist movement found expression in the people’s upraising in 1879, led by Ahmed Rabbi. This led to the first nationalist ministry, with a commitment to democratic reforms and parliament’s control over the budget. Fearing the rise of democratic movement, the British and French mounted an attack against the government and reinstated Ismael’s son Tawfiq as the figure head of regime, effectively controlled by the British.
The beginning of the Islamist and Arab nationalist movement against western imperialism and the British colonialism emerged in the later part of 19th century. Al-Azhar University became a fountain head of the political and knowledge process in the region. It is in such a context that the Pan-Islamic movement against western imperialism, propagated by Jamalluddin Afghani found many followers in Egypt. Jamalluddin Afghani was a scholar, activist, religious reformer and campaigner – who significantly influenced the Islamic discourse in the British India, Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt Russia, and within the Ottoman Empire. The ideological work of Jamalluddin helped to create a pan-Isamist critique against imperialism and colonialism. The founder of Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al Banna, was a follower of the pan-Islamist ideology propagated by Jammalludin Afghani.
Muslim Brotherhood began as social-religious reform movement in 1928 attracted the attention of an emerging educated middle class wish a share sense of discontent against the British Imperialism in the Arab Region- particularly in the context of the geo-politics of the oil. So the organisation emerged as the most entrenched form of socio-religious force - with a hundred years of legacy of Islamist critique of Imperialism. The ideology of Muslim Brotherhood has very significantly influenced the Islamist politics in the Arab world, South Asia and elsewhere. Though, many of the more militant version of the pan-Islamist movements, including Hamas and Al-Qaida, emerged through the political trajectory of the Muslim Brotherhood, it is more of socio-religious transnational organisations, rather than a political party. And
Muslim Brotherhood itself is no longer a monolithic organisation. It is more of a networked organisational form- with extreme fundamentalists to moderate and liberal Muslims within its fold.
Muslim Brotherhood, though officially banned, in Egypt has formally declared its stand against violence. In spite of the official ban, Muslim Brotherhood still remains the most organised social, religious and political force in Egypt. However, one also has to understand that in a country of around 83 million people, Muslim Brotherhood is estimated to have only around one hundred thousand active members and another hundred thousand supporters working through a network of mosques, clinics and Charity organisations.
Egypt has been the fountain head of new thinking, knowledge formations and new waves of Islamist politics. One of the key issues in Egypt and the Arab world is still the Palestinian issue. There were four wars between Israel and Egypt. In spite of a widely shared sense of discontent against Israel in the Arab world, Egypt signed a peace accord, after Camp David Treat in 1979, with Israel and established diplomatic relationship with Israel. The peace-treaty was more between the two regimes, and less between two people. Hence, there is a wide-spread discontent against the perceived hegemony of the USA and Israel in the geo-politics of the region.
Movement for Democracy
Today, Egypt is at the heart of the Arab World- a country with immense geo-political and economic implications. The people of Egypt have not only a collective memory of civilization depth - but also a vibrant legacy of influencing the knowledge and political process of the region. Every time when I visit Egypt I was struck by this shared sense of collective memory about a culture and civilization- much beyond the usual confines of religion.
So the present people’s campaign against the regime of Hosni Mubarak needs to be seen in the larger historical, political and ideological context of Egypt and the Arab region. A network of progressive civil society organisations and NGOs played a key role in enabling invisible modes of mobilisation - for months on this- much before what have witnessed from January 20th. As someone who knows many of these actors on the ground I could see this coming.
The present mobilisation and protest is due to number of cumulative process- and in such a process there are a whole range of actors across and beyond various ideological shades. So if someone wants to discover a 'left' or 'Marxist' revolution, they are simply doing a wishful reading, far away from the real political dynamics on the ground. And the present mobilisations have direct link with a) Large number of unemployment b) Rampant corruption and a completely corrupt and cynical police force c) Crony capitalism and high level of social and economic inequality d) Sky rocketing price of essential commodities e) Use of the state force to silence the critics f) range of political process- largely Islamist critique- and shared sense of anger against US f) The impact of new media and the 'revolution' in Tunisia, g) A widely shared sense of anger about the perception that Hosni Mubarak is more of representative of American interests in the region h) The real pressure of economic crises felt by so many poor people due to the sky rocketing price of essential commodities This was partly a 'reaction'- and also partly opportunistic- as the election in Egypt is scheduled to be held in September and no one wants to have the son of Hosni Mubarak as the candidate of the 'one and only'- the National Democratic Party. The immediate triggers for these protests are a) High level of unemployment among educated middle class youth and b) High prevalence of corruption and complete erosion of the legitimacy of the government. A whole range of actors from Human rights activists, socialists, Islamists, professionals and members of Muslim Brotherhood are involved in the present campaign. In fact, many of the young people at the forefront of this campaign also happened to be educated middle class, with a neo-liberal inclination. So any effort to theorise the mobilisation of diverse interests and ideological spectrum in to a particular framework would be problematic.
Implications of Political Transitions
Following are some of the key implications of the ongoing political mobilisation and movement in Egypt.
1) Health of political parties is very important for the sustenance of any democratic system. And Hosni Mubarak over a period slow-poisoned co-opted and annihilated the multi-party system. When there is no-vibrant political party system, there is an increasing chance of any big mobilisation or protest get subverted and instrumentalised by other streams of vested-interests and reactionary forces. When there are a significant number of people without any stake in the country and the government they live, there will be cumulative discontent bursting in to forms of mobilisation and violence.
2) Egypt, Syria and Iran are the most strategic countries in the region- as all these people carry a collective sense of history and memory with a shared sense of immense pride. And these counties also got what can be termed as 'civilizational depth'. So a wind of change in Egypt can have immense consequence for the region. And while many of these countries may move to a different pattern of relatively more democratic regimes, the chances of them adhering to the received notions of 'western liberalism' is less. And one has to understand this beyond the confines of religion to a more cultural and civilizational assertions of these countries.
3) This could create new insecurity in Israel and this means a more aggressive posturing by Israel with possibly new alliances and Axis within the Arab world.
4) If the trouble continues in Egypt- and its potential spread to other countries, the price of crude oil and petrol may sky rocket( as it happened in 1973 and 77)- and this would have clear implications for the economy of Europe and then many oil importing countries across the world. Europe is going through a very vulnerable period of economic and political phase. And an increasing price of oil means a further hike in food price and also other commodities. This could create socio-political tensions in many countries of the world.
5) It would be good to study the modes of de-colonisation and 'modernisation' project in many parts of Arab world, Africa and Asia. Wherever, the process of decolonisation happened through the army elites- or a 'movement' led by army officers, democracy did not take root. If we study the history of Egypt from 1950s to 2010- one can see how this process unfolded- from Nasser- through Sadat- and Hosni Mubarak. If we look at the history of Turkey, Indonesia etc, we get this picture. And note that all of them have been countries with majority of Muslim population. The dynamics and process of decolonisation and the post-colonial regime- and the implications of such a process- need a closer look.
6) So the chances are that USA and its allies would try to influence the army (which received annually an average of 2 billion US dollars as military aid from the US- one of the biggest recipient of US military aid for thirty years). In the post-Islamic revolution in Iran in 1977, US co-opted Hosni Mubarak as an effective 'neutralising' agent in the region. Egypt and Jordan were the key blocks in the middle-east strategy of the US- in relation to Israel and Iran. And now such a 'constructed' consensus of 'false stability' may give rise to new geo-political equations and consequent tensions in the region. Hence, the US- and its allies would try to pop-up a national government with the support of army- and a secret pact with Muslim Brotherhood. And eventually after an election within the next six months, they will try and co-opt a new government. However, this will not be that easy- as there is a widely shared anti-American sentiment across the region. And Egypt has longer history of ant-imperialist politics- based on an Islamist critique of imperialism and western liberalism.
7) It is after the Iranian Islamic revolution against the regime of Sha (where America completely lost the plot and the people), that Egypt acquired a new 'strategic significance'. The biggest recipient of the US Military aid has been Israel. Then Egypt and the third one is Pakistan. Egyptian Military received one of the highest military aid and training from the USA. The regime of Hosni Mubarak (along with Jordan) was a key part in the US-game-plan of the Regan Era and this continued. And one of the reasons that US got hardly any supporters in the entire region is the 'double speak' on democracy- and a complete cynical approach of using authoritarian rulers- in the name of the MB- and other such forces. And at the same time the Regan- Sia-ul-huq dispensation funded the extreme Islmist Taliban and Mujahidin. And also those who are educated and aware could clearly see through this double speak- when the real interest was in oil and to create - adequate tension- to do geo-political balance through supporting Israel- and at the same time taking peace! All these led to a middle class - more educated and aware - angry with this dispensation of Mubarak- US axis.
8)During the Nasser phase, Egypt was more inclined to the soviet- side- and it is during that phase that there was a significant wave of left thinking and trade unionism in Egypt. However, that generation began to get eclipsed in the 1990s- and many of the erstwhile leftist (particularly many Trotskyites) moved to a pan-Islamic framework of critique of the western civilization-imperialist mode. So what can be termed as left in the context of Egypt are largely the academic variety and mostly those human rights civil society groups and NGO. These networks played a role in the sense of consistently critiquing the Mubarak- American axis that suppressed the democratic political aspirations and process. However, the present mobilisation is a result of number of factors- and got a whole range of actors involved in it- due to different reasons.
The Emerging challenges
Every political situation, context and revolution would be unique. That goes without saying. But no political transition in the modern nation--state happens in isolation. There are historical, economic, cultural, geo-political and international dynamics that influence and shape the agenda of any regime or change of regime. While understanding and appreciating the power of the people and the unique character of the situation, it is also important to be informed by soco-cultural and political history of the region and the world- and also develop a sense about comparative politics- in any types of transitional politics.
1)Military still remains one of the most stable and strong institutions in Egypt- and the entire political leadership of Egypt from 1952 were derived from the military. And the top brass of Military will certainly have role in negotiating change- in the next one year- and even when there is a civilian government, their role will not decrease
Most of the top brass of army are trained by the US (like the case of Pakistan) and hence the US plan would be to operate through the Army (that is what they did from 1977 to 1982- till Mubarak was in the chair- he was from Air force) - and pop up a national unity government- with possible participation of a section of MB. The present NDP may split in to two or three factions. In spite of all the present enthusiasm and mobilisation, in the next election in September, there could be political subversion - and the chances of an ex-military man in the form of party A or B would be more probable.
Army is not monolithic. It is one thing for the soldiers or policemen to be friendly with people, but it is an entirely different thing when it comes to hard power politics of managing multiple interests with the muscle power of army. One has seen this in many places, most recently in Thailand. So there may not be any sudden repression or oppression. But what may happen is the ‘subversion’ of power in such transition
Armed forces may not want to lose this opportunity to control and the US may not want to miss the opportunity to influence the army. So it could even be like a Pakistan-type arrangement. Civil Government n the front- with army in the back with huge say in foreign policy, security and defence. The problem is that 'built-in' instability may cripple the Egyptian economy- and the extremist elements would take this opportunity to create more sense of insecurity and chaos
2) As Egypt moves in to next phase, there are many challenges ahead: a) The future of the 1979 , Israel-Egypt accord signed after the Camp David b) How new political parties get a real presence and politics within a period of six months- in a society that hardly got any political party process, structures or experience c) How to transform institutions in such a way to align to the new aspiration for a democratic civilian governance d) Ability to do strategic negotiation with Military to make sure that they remain in the background of the political process rather than in the forefront e) Supporting the new political party process to move towards a more democratic and peaceful transition. Egypt may also require a new constitution- and this would take its own time- with lots of political implications. The next one year may define the politics of the country and region in the next fifteen years.
There are many issues here: a) Absence of rooted leadership with political experience or understanding- as Mubarak destroyed all possibilities for alternative politics or leadership b) whether the Barak Obama would show a sharp sense of practical as well as political imagination that would help that US to win back the good will of the people, and at the same time ensuring the sustainability of the Egypt-Israel peace accord. Egypt is a geo-political hot-spot for various reasons- and in a way the US simply cannot afford to lose the precarious (and risky) geo-political balance within the given context.
3)The more challenging aspect would be how to transform the energy of young people who in a way spontaneously mobilised and persisted for change to be a part of the new political process and positive development. Most of them want a peaceful co-existence with Israel. While a large number of them may prefer a moderate Islamic slant of democratic governance, majority of people may not prefer the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood - as a large number of ordinary Egyptians also seem to indicate a respect for other religions- particularly the Coptic Church- as almost 10 percent of population may be Christians
4)There has to be new constitution, election and a civilian leadership.In the last many years, there were hardly any genuine elections in Egypt. And conducting an election is not merely about aspirations- but also about institutional capacity and technical capacity. The logistics, capacity and the technical know-how of conducting a genuine election requires institutional experience and technical expertise as well.
5)One has to wait and see how the 'Revolution' unfolds in terms of hard-politics in terms of negotiating multiple interests and ideals for democracy. Of course, we all would like a true revolution- with transformative politics, policy and state. But that is not something that can happen within few months
6)History of stable democratic transition shows the need for three things( among others) a) Healthy political party process b) Army completely detached from political management of the state, restricting their traditional role c) A capable and vibrant middle class. And Egypt certainly got a very capable, aware and enlightened middle class. And my sense is that after 58 years of direct role in political management of the state, it would be indeed challenging to keep out the army completely out of governance (particularly due to geo-politics and the entrenched power-relationships) and the sustainable political parties emerge over a period of time. So the chances are there will indeed be democratic transition with’d’ in the short term.
7) In the present context of transition,it may be good to learn from experience of Turkey- (which in a way had close links with Egypt- historically and to somewhat culturally too- Egypt was a part of the Ottoman Empire and many institutions are influenced by such a historical experience). It is interesting to see how democracy- Islam- Army negotiated over a period of time in the context of Turkey- with a clear sense of negotiation with global and European economy. Of course, Kemal Ataturk was a true visionary- a man with a historical sense of mission, though he too began as young army officer( like Nasser)
8)The sheer power of mobilization of people and their aspiration for democracy means it would be difficult for the regime to continue in the present mode. So in the emerging situation, there will be more space and freedom for people, space for political parties, but a transition to a restricted democracy- with a civilian leadership- backed by the Army.
It is one thing to transition to a civil leadership and it is not the same thing to sustain a stable and vibrant democratic state. One hopes this will happen and this would go down in the history as the one of the most formidable democratic revolutions in 21st century. One can hope so, though hope in itself may not necessarily match with the complexities of power-games on the ground and elsewhere.
The next few weeks in Egypt will have serious implications not only for the region, but also for the economy and political process of the world.
At the heart of Cairo, Tahrir square- the square of Liberation, is surrounded by very important institutions of power and culture. The square was named after the Liberation, in 1952, from the rule of a corrupt and feeble Monarchy. A group of young military officers forced out the monarchy, a puppet regime of the British colonialists. And in 2011, hundreds of thousands of largely middle class people, particularly young, want an aging Hosni Mubarak to leave the chair- for the people. Hosni Mubarak ruled Egypt more than anyone since Muhammad Ali in the early nineteenth (from 1805) century.
Over a period of thirty years, the regime systematically subverted, marginalised or annihilated any voice of dissent or opposition or democratic freedom. Though in 2005, under the pressure from the US, Hosni Mubarak sought to create a smoke screen of 'democratic' election, it did not help the eroding legitimacy of the regime. The rise of a corrupt network of rich people around the regime and the efforts to install his younger son, Gamel Mubarak, as the next ruler further alienated a large number of urban middle class across Egypt.
The growing social and economic inequality, along with increasing price of essential commodities and decreasing employment opportunities provided the trigger for expressing the widespread discontent brewing over many years. The popular uprising against another long-ruling dictator in the Arab World provided new inspiration for the younger generation. Al-Jazeera televised the 'Revolution' in Tunis. This inspired imagination of the young and found the expression of anger, pent-up over the years. This was the first time a majority of them ever participated in a protest movement. The loose social network of young people on Face book to commemorate Khaled Said, a young man allegedly beaten to death by the Police, gave a call for a protest on 25th January (Police Day), to highlight the brutality of the Police. Those in the April 6th network and few from the Ghad( Tomorrow) Party of former Presidential candidate Ayman Nour supported the call for a protest mobilisation on 25th January They expected few hundred; but thousands of people wanted to chant Liberation at the good old Liberation Square. That is how the popular urge for a revolution began!
It is important to understand the present social and political mobilisation in the context of the history, geo-politics and the larger international politics.
Understanding the political history of Egypt
Egypt is not simply another country. Egypt is the only trans-continental nation-state with an influence in Africa, Mediterranean region, Arab world and within the larger framework of Pan-Islamic world. Egypt- with a written history of more than six thousand years, still remain the most eloquent symbol of the March of history and power in the entire history of the world. One of the first unified Kingdoms in the world was founded in the region in BCE 3150 by King Menes, followed by a series of dynasties of Pharaohs. Some of the most evident form of the expression of power, in the form of Pyramids, followed by the development of Alexandria as one of the most important centres of trade, culture and civilizations, during the Roman Era created an enduring and entrenched sense of hegemonic role for the country. Egypt has influenced Europe, Asia and Africa in so many ways all through the history. Christianity was introduced in Egypt by St. Mark, the disciple of Jesus and the Coptic Church of Egypt still remains one of the ancient churches in the world. The journey of Egypt through the Roman Empire, Byzantium, absorption in to the emerging Islamic empire in CE 639, and annexation to Ottoman empire 1571 and the emergence of new monarchy under Mohammed Ali in 1805 and the eventual over throw of the monarchy of King Farouk in 1952 by Free Officers Movement, led by a group of Army officers give us broad sense about the complexity of the political trajectory of the country.
It is with the French invasion by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1789, Egypt began to face the colonial and imperialistic powers of the west, in the form of French and then the British domination. During the Ottoman campaign against the French in 1801, Muhammad Ali, an Albanian general in the Ottoman Army took over the control of Egypt. The real interest of the colonial powers in Egypt began when the Suez Canal was completed in 1869, in partnership with the French. The Suez Canal completed during the tenure of King Islamil had immense political consequences. The heavy cost of construction of the canal left Egypt with a huge debt to the European Banks. And to pay back the Debt, the people were over taxed and this created new political tensions. Making use of this opportunity, the British took over the canal and converted the monarchy in to a puppet regime and eventually making Egypt a British Protectorate in 1914.
The first political mobilisation against foreign intruders and monarchy and the seeds of the first nationalist movement found expression in the people’s upraising in 1879, led by Ahmed Rabbi. This led to the first nationalist ministry, with a commitment to democratic reforms and parliament’s control over the budget. Fearing the rise of democratic movement, the British and French mounted an attack against the government and reinstated Ismael’s son Tawfiq as the figure head of regime, effectively controlled by the British.
The beginning of the Islamist and Arab nationalist movement against western imperialism and the British colonialism emerged in the later part of 19th century. Al-Azhar University became a fountain head of the political and knowledge process in the region. It is in such a context that the Pan-Islamic movement against western imperialism, propagated by Jamalluddin Afghani found many followers in Egypt. Jamalluddin Afghani was a scholar, activist, religious reformer and campaigner – who significantly influenced the Islamic discourse in the British India, Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt Russia, and within the Ottoman Empire. The ideological work of Jamalluddin helped to create a pan-Isamist critique against imperialism and colonialism. The founder of Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al Banna, was a follower of the pan-Islamist ideology propagated by Jammalludin Afghani.
Muslim Brotherhood began as social-religious reform movement in 1928 attracted the attention of an emerging educated middle class wish a share sense of discontent against the British Imperialism in the Arab Region- particularly in the context of the geo-politics of the oil. So the organisation emerged as the most entrenched form of socio-religious force - with a hundred years of legacy of Islamist critique of Imperialism. The ideology of Muslim Brotherhood has very significantly influenced the Islamist politics in the Arab world, South Asia and elsewhere. Though, many of the more militant version of the pan-Islamist movements, including Hamas and Al-Qaida, emerged through the political trajectory of the Muslim Brotherhood, it is more of socio-religious transnational organisations, rather than a political party. And
Muslim Brotherhood itself is no longer a monolithic organisation. It is more of a networked organisational form- with extreme fundamentalists to moderate and liberal Muslims within its fold.
Muslim Brotherhood, though officially banned, in Egypt has formally declared its stand against violence. In spite of the official ban, Muslim Brotherhood still remains the most organised social, religious and political force in Egypt. However, one also has to understand that in a country of around 83 million people, Muslim Brotherhood is estimated to have only around one hundred thousand active members and another hundred thousand supporters working through a network of mosques, clinics and Charity organisations.
Egypt has been the fountain head of new thinking, knowledge formations and new waves of Islamist politics. One of the key issues in Egypt and the Arab world is still the Palestinian issue. There were four wars between Israel and Egypt. In spite of a widely shared sense of discontent against Israel in the Arab world, Egypt signed a peace accord, after Camp David Treat in 1979, with Israel and established diplomatic relationship with Israel. The peace-treaty was more between the two regimes, and less between two people. Hence, there is a wide-spread discontent against the perceived hegemony of the USA and Israel in the geo-politics of the region.
Movement for Democracy
Today, Egypt is at the heart of the Arab World- a country with immense geo-political and economic implications. The people of Egypt have not only a collective memory of civilization depth - but also a vibrant legacy of influencing the knowledge and political process of the region. Every time when I visit Egypt I was struck by this shared sense of collective memory about a culture and civilization- much beyond the usual confines of religion.
So the present people’s campaign against the regime of Hosni Mubarak needs to be seen in the larger historical, political and ideological context of Egypt and the Arab region. A network of progressive civil society organisations and NGOs played a key role in enabling invisible modes of mobilisation - for months on this- much before what have witnessed from January 20th. As someone who knows many of these actors on the ground I could see this coming.
The present mobilisation and protest is due to number of cumulative process- and in such a process there are a whole range of actors across and beyond various ideological shades. So if someone wants to discover a 'left' or 'Marxist' revolution, they are simply doing a wishful reading, far away from the real political dynamics on the ground. And the present mobilisations have direct link with a) Large number of unemployment b) Rampant corruption and a completely corrupt and cynical police force c) Crony capitalism and high level of social and economic inequality d) Sky rocketing price of essential commodities e) Use of the state force to silence the critics f) range of political process- largely Islamist critique- and shared sense of anger against US f) The impact of new media and the 'revolution' in Tunisia, g) A widely shared sense of anger about the perception that Hosni Mubarak is more of representative of American interests in the region h) The real pressure of economic crises felt by so many poor people due to the sky rocketing price of essential commodities This was partly a 'reaction'- and also partly opportunistic- as the election in Egypt is scheduled to be held in September and no one wants to have the son of Hosni Mubarak as the candidate of the 'one and only'- the National Democratic Party. The immediate triggers for these protests are a) High level of unemployment among educated middle class youth and b) High prevalence of corruption and complete erosion of the legitimacy of the government. A whole range of actors from Human rights activists, socialists, Islamists, professionals and members of Muslim Brotherhood are involved in the present campaign. In fact, many of the young people at the forefront of this campaign also happened to be educated middle class, with a neo-liberal inclination. So any effort to theorise the mobilisation of diverse interests and ideological spectrum in to a particular framework would be problematic.
Implications of Political Transitions
Following are some of the key implications of the ongoing political mobilisation and movement in Egypt.
1) Health of political parties is very important for the sustenance of any democratic system. And Hosni Mubarak over a period slow-poisoned co-opted and annihilated the multi-party system. When there is no-vibrant political party system, there is an increasing chance of any big mobilisation or protest get subverted and instrumentalised by other streams of vested-interests and reactionary forces. When there are a significant number of people without any stake in the country and the government they live, there will be cumulative discontent bursting in to forms of mobilisation and violence.
2) Egypt, Syria and Iran are the most strategic countries in the region- as all these people carry a collective sense of history and memory with a shared sense of immense pride. And these counties also got what can be termed as 'civilizational depth'. So a wind of change in Egypt can have immense consequence for the region. And while many of these countries may move to a different pattern of relatively more democratic regimes, the chances of them adhering to the received notions of 'western liberalism' is less. And one has to understand this beyond the confines of religion to a more cultural and civilizational assertions of these countries.
3) This could create new insecurity in Israel and this means a more aggressive posturing by Israel with possibly new alliances and Axis within the Arab world.
4) If the trouble continues in Egypt- and its potential spread to other countries, the price of crude oil and petrol may sky rocket( as it happened in 1973 and 77)- and this would have clear implications for the economy of Europe and then many oil importing countries across the world. Europe is going through a very vulnerable period of economic and political phase. And an increasing price of oil means a further hike in food price and also other commodities. This could create socio-political tensions in many countries of the world.
5) It would be good to study the modes of de-colonisation and 'modernisation' project in many parts of Arab world, Africa and Asia. Wherever, the process of decolonisation happened through the army elites- or a 'movement' led by army officers, democracy did not take root. If we study the history of Egypt from 1950s to 2010- one can see how this process unfolded- from Nasser- through Sadat- and Hosni Mubarak. If we look at the history of Turkey, Indonesia etc, we get this picture. And note that all of them have been countries with majority of Muslim population. The dynamics and process of decolonisation and the post-colonial regime- and the implications of such a process- need a closer look.
6) So the chances are that USA and its allies would try to influence the army (which received annually an average of 2 billion US dollars as military aid from the US- one of the biggest recipient of US military aid for thirty years). In the post-Islamic revolution in Iran in 1977, US co-opted Hosni Mubarak as an effective 'neutralising' agent in the region. Egypt and Jordan were the key blocks in the middle-east strategy of the US- in relation to Israel and Iran. And now such a 'constructed' consensus of 'false stability' may give rise to new geo-political equations and consequent tensions in the region. Hence, the US- and its allies would try to pop-up a national government with the support of army- and a secret pact with Muslim Brotherhood. And eventually after an election within the next six months, they will try and co-opt a new government. However, this will not be that easy- as there is a widely shared anti-American sentiment across the region. And Egypt has longer history of ant-imperialist politics- based on an Islamist critique of imperialism and western liberalism.
7) It is after the Iranian Islamic revolution against the regime of Sha (where America completely lost the plot and the people), that Egypt acquired a new 'strategic significance'. The biggest recipient of the US Military aid has been Israel. Then Egypt and the third one is Pakistan. Egyptian Military received one of the highest military aid and training from the USA. The regime of Hosni Mubarak (along with Jordan) was a key part in the US-game-plan of the Regan Era and this continued. And one of the reasons that US got hardly any supporters in the entire region is the 'double speak' on democracy- and a complete cynical approach of using authoritarian rulers- in the name of the MB- and other such forces. And at the same time the Regan- Sia-ul-huq dispensation funded the extreme Islmist Taliban and Mujahidin. And also those who are educated and aware could clearly see through this double speak- when the real interest was in oil and to create - adequate tension- to do geo-political balance through supporting Israel- and at the same time taking peace! All these led to a middle class - more educated and aware - angry with this dispensation of Mubarak- US axis.
8)During the Nasser phase, Egypt was more inclined to the soviet- side- and it is during that phase that there was a significant wave of left thinking and trade unionism in Egypt. However, that generation began to get eclipsed in the 1990s- and many of the erstwhile leftist (particularly many Trotskyites) moved to a pan-Islamic framework of critique of the western civilization-imperialist mode. So what can be termed as left in the context of Egypt are largely the academic variety and mostly those human rights civil society groups and NGO. These networks played a role in the sense of consistently critiquing the Mubarak- American axis that suppressed the democratic political aspirations and process. However, the present mobilisation is a result of number of factors- and got a whole range of actors involved in it- due to different reasons.
The Emerging challenges
Every political situation, context and revolution would be unique. That goes without saying. But no political transition in the modern nation--state happens in isolation. There are historical, economic, cultural, geo-political and international dynamics that influence and shape the agenda of any regime or change of regime. While understanding and appreciating the power of the people and the unique character of the situation, it is also important to be informed by soco-cultural and political history of the region and the world- and also develop a sense about comparative politics- in any types of transitional politics.
1)Military still remains one of the most stable and strong institutions in Egypt- and the entire political leadership of Egypt from 1952 were derived from the military. And the top brass of Military will certainly have role in negotiating change- in the next one year- and even when there is a civilian government, their role will not decrease
Most of the top brass of army are trained by the US (like the case of Pakistan) and hence the US plan would be to operate through the Army (that is what they did from 1977 to 1982- till Mubarak was in the chair- he was from Air force) - and pop up a national unity government- with possible participation of a section of MB. The present NDP may split in to two or three factions. In spite of all the present enthusiasm and mobilisation, in the next election in September, there could be political subversion - and the chances of an ex-military man in the form of party A or B would be more probable.
Army is not monolithic. It is one thing for the soldiers or policemen to be friendly with people, but it is an entirely different thing when it comes to hard power politics of managing multiple interests with the muscle power of army. One has seen this in many places, most recently in Thailand. So there may not be any sudden repression or oppression. But what may happen is the ‘subversion’ of power in such transition
Armed forces may not want to lose this opportunity to control and the US may not want to miss the opportunity to influence the army. So it could even be like a Pakistan-type arrangement. Civil Government n the front- with army in the back with huge say in foreign policy, security and defence. The problem is that 'built-in' instability may cripple the Egyptian economy- and the extremist elements would take this opportunity to create more sense of insecurity and chaos
2) As Egypt moves in to next phase, there are many challenges ahead: a) The future of the 1979 , Israel-Egypt accord signed after the Camp David b) How new political parties get a real presence and politics within a period of six months- in a society that hardly got any political party process, structures or experience c) How to transform institutions in such a way to align to the new aspiration for a democratic civilian governance d) Ability to do strategic negotiation with Military to make sure that they remain in the background of the political process rather than in the forefront e) Supporting the new political party process to move towards a more democratic and peaceful transition. Egypt may also require a new constitution- and this would take its own time- with lots of political implications. The next one year may define the politics of the country and region in the next fifteen years.
There are many issues here: a) Absence of rooted leadership with political experience or understanding- as Mubarak destroyed all possibilities for alternative politics or leadership b) whether the Barak Obama would show a sharp sense of practical as well as political imagination that would help that US to win back the good will of the people, and at the same time ensuring the sustainability of the Egypt-Israel peace accord. Egypt is a geo-political hot-spot for various reasons- and in a way the US simply cannot afford to lose the precarious (and risky) geo-political balance within the given context.
3)The more challenging aspect would be how to transform the energy of young people who in a way spontaneously mobilised and persisted for change to be a part of the new political process and positive development. Most of them want a peaceful co-existence with Israel. While a large number of them may prefer a moderate Islamic slant of democratic governance, majority of people may not prefer the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood - as a large number of ordinary Egyptians also seem to indicate a respect for other religions- particularly the Coptic Church- as almost 10 percent of population may be Christians
4)There has to be new constitution, election and a civilian leadership.In the last many years, there were hardly any genuine elections in Egypt. And conducting an election is not merely about aspirations- but also about institutional capacity and technical capacity. The logistics, capacity and the technical know-how of conducting a genuine election requires institutional experience and technical expertise as well.
5)One has to wait and see how the 'Revolution' unfolds in terms of hard-politics in terms of negotiating multiple interests and ideals for democracy. Of course, we all would like a true revolution- with transformative politics, policy and state. But that is not something that can happen within few months
6)History of stable democratic transition shows the need for three things( among others) a) Healthy political party process b) Army completely detached from political management of the state, restricting their traditional role c) A capable and vibrant middle class. And Egypt certainly got a very capable, aware and enlightened middle class. And my sense is that after 58 years of direct role in political management of the state, it would be indeed challenging to keep out the army completely out of governance (particularly due to geo-politics and the entrenched power-relationships) and the sustainable political parties emerge over a period of time. So the chances are there will indeed be democratic transition with’d’ in the short term.
7) In the present context of transition,it may be good to learn from experience of Turkey- (which in a way had close links with Egypt- historically and to somewhat culturally too- Egypt was a part of the Ottoman Empire and many institutions are influenced by such a historical experience). It is interesting to see how democracy- Islam- Army negotiated over a period of time in the context of Turkey- with a clear sense of negotiation with global and European economy. Of course, Kemal Ataturk was a true visionary- a man with a historical sense of mission, though he too began as young army officer( like Nasser)
8)The sheer power of mobilization of people and their aspiration for democracy means it would be difficult for the regime to continue in the present mode. So in the emerging situation, there will be more space and freedom for people, space for political parties, but a transition to a restricted democracy- with a civilian leadership- backed by the Army.
It is one thing to transition to a civil leadership and it is not the same thing to sustain a stable and vibrant democratic state. One hopes this will happen and this would go down in the history as the one of the most formidable democratic revolutions in 21st century. One can hope so, though hope in itself may not necessarily match with the complexities of power-games on the ground and elsewhere.
The next few weeks in Egypt will have serious implications not only for the region, but also for the economy and political process of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)